Pages

Thursday, July 31, 2008

Anarticle by Dinesh d'Souza on Townhall in clarification of a recent al Jazeera broadcast in which he was juxtapositioned to Richard Dawkins, shoots once again to the forefront the fruitless discourse on Darwin's Theory of Evolution on the one hand, versus Creationism and Intelligent Design (ID) on the other (the latter a legal collation).

D'Souza, author of "What's so Great About Christianity," before joining the Hoover Institution, was the John M. Olin Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Dawkins authored "The God Delusion" and is a well known Skepticist whose wiki biography fails to disclose any political activities other than anti Vietnam and anti Iraq War reflexes.

Dawkins is a proud Skepticist. Skepticism itself is a Naturalistic theory which holds that man is incapable of acquiring knowledge about reality. It even rejects consciousness and reduces man to the animal level. The term Skepticism by its Greek root σκεπτω, to think, suggests reason, but on the contrary, the theory excludes it. Skepticism is endemic in current academia.

Dawkins' credentials as a Postmodern anti-humanist are indicated by his involvement in the Great Apes Project, which seeks to reduce humans to the moral level of gorillas, and his close association with bio-ethicist Peter Singer, a well-known advocate of infanticide in the service of animal liberation, both suggesting that the distinction between man and animal is meaningless to Dawkins.

Returning to the discourse on evolution versus creation, it is clear from the outset that this false, unscientific dichotomy is leading nowhere. Any explanation for the origin of life other than the two polarized options are a priori excluded from the debate for reasons of Postmodern sophistry. The reason lies in a rather dishonest debating technique, a parlor trick in which Postmodernists excel: recasting the subject in a caricature of itself after which - exposed to ridicule - it can safely be condemned as 'obviously invalid.'As d'Souza explains the reason why relativist thinkers cling dogmatically to Darwin's unproved theory is that it provides them with the 'scientific' basis for the atheist ideology. This in turn explains the fanaticism and the close-mindedness displayed since the 1880's and why Charles Darwin - like Sigmund Freud - has been included in the Marxist pantheon.

Out-of-the-box, often exact scientists (the real ones) working in the field known collectively as Intelligent Design, are lumped in with Creationists proper after a US lawsuit (see Part I) declared the two metaphysical explanations legally 'identical.' But compare the Biblical story with this explanation of ID and it becomes plain that equivalencing the two only exists in terms of a political agenda: the Darwinists'.

Since then any suggestions, other than evolutionist, are confined to a particularly nasty corner of the atheist hell specially reserved for 'Christians and other primitive Flat Earthers.' The picture is meant to conjure up the vista of Galileo's enlightened heliocentricity, said to have been suppressed by the obscurantist Renaissance Church.

The cases are is not dissimilar, but the Catholic Church authorities displayed a far more open, scientific mind-set than Galileo and Postmodern Darwinian absolutists combined: the Galileo denunciation by the Church lay in the fact that he insisted on his theory being taken as empirically proved, while in fact this was not the case.

The same is true for Darwin's theory. Luckily for Galileo, he later turned out to be right; this remains however to be seen in the case of Darwin and his pomo followers, who prefer shutting up dissent: the result is that their theory increasingly takes the shape of dogma, and that scientists think twice before publicly venturing a fresh hypotheses. As far as research in the field of the origins of life are concerned, we are in a scientific dark age.

The application of Darwinism to other fields is rejected by both debaters, but in the case of Dawkins, this position is questionable: like Muslims, pomos are allowed to lie to their opponents.

D'Souza - himself a Darwin follower - explains that the theory as posited by Darwin had no bearing on the origin of life itself, or indeed on human consciousness.

Dawkins for his part - although he declared Darwinism to be applicable to cultural traits (memes) - in Part II of the program rejects social Darwinism: not its existence, but advocating it. Of course Dawkins would reject social Darwinism: in the eyes of its adherents socialism does little else but counter it and compensate its perceived victims from the negative effects; the core tenet of the dialectic is progress through strife and conflict between 'the Oppressors and the historically Oppressed'. Of racial Darwinism as invoked by Nazi ideology, Dawkins pretends not to be aware; he prefers to patronize his interlocutor and ridicules him as 'illogical,' a flat earther.

Typically Dawkins prefers to start indoctrination of the dogma as early as possible: children ideally should be exposed to the correct ideology from the age of eight, rather than their middle teens when the faulty epistemological basis has already been formed; after Fichte it is well known that free enquiry and dissent must be crushed as early as possible.

We see that relativist thinkers use the Christian approach as an excuse for the relativist anti-humanism. The Biblical principle that God created man in His image leads not only to the fundamental objectivity that all men are created equal (also rejected by relativism); but the same teaching laid the cornerstone as well for the anthropocentrism that relativists so fiercely denounce. Man is not Nature's lord and custodian, but its usurper. Down with civilization, long live Rousseau's noble savage!

What seems at first glance to be a legitimate debate on a existential issue which may be approached from a religious, philosophical or sccientific angle, can on analysis be reduced to the usual boring banalities of the Postmodern political agenda: a ploy for the deconstruction of Western civilization through the anti-modern dialectic (sigh ...).